Owners with the least resources are hit hardest by the tax.

Share this:

OAKLAND, CA – JUNE 6: Jeanine Fetterly is photographed by an empty lot she owns off Northwood Court in Oakland, Calif., on Thursday, June 6, 2019. Fetterly is one of the property owners who’s possibly subject to a $6,000 vacant parcel tax next year, following the passage of Measure W last November. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group)

OAKLAND — Seventy-year-old Jeanine Fetterly’s dream since 1976 was to have her children build themselves a home on the same street where they grew up in the Montclair district.

That’s why she bought a vacant tree-lined lot above Skyline Boulevard with views of San Francisco Bay, just a few houses down from her home.

But after the passage of Oakland’s Measure W in November, which could slap a $6,000 tax on vacant lots, she fears her dream may never come true.

“My children will be the ones who suffer the loss,” Fetterly said in a recent interview.

The measure — written by City Council President Rebecca Kaplan and passed by 70 percent of Oakland voters — was meant to discourage corporate speculators and spur development as well as raise money to fund homeless services and fight illegal dumping. A report from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation cited land speculation as one of the top reasons properties stay vacant a long time in the city.

But opponents of the measure, including property-owner organizations, contend it unfairly hurts those who don’t yet have the money to build on their vacant lots and now will be stuck either having to pay the annual tax or sell the property. Since the measure passed, the local real estate market has been flooded with people trying to sell vacant lots, which has substantially reduced their value from just a year ago.

Fetterly has managed to hold onto her sloped vacant lot through the East Bay hills firestorm of 1991, the death of her husband and other setbacks in her and her children’s lives by forking out about $1,000 a year for property taxes and weed abatement. She says her children, now in their 40s, don’t have the money or the time to build a house from the ground up.

She looked into selling the parcel but says its value took a big hit after Measure W passed.

Property owners have packed public sessions held by the city, wondering whether the tax applies to their vacant lots. Those sessions are intended to get community feedback as city officials draft an ordinance to implement the tax. The city’s finance department plans to present a draft ordinance to the City Council in October before the tax is supposed to be levied next year.

The city defines a vacant parcel as one that’s “in use” less than 50 days a year, starting this year. But the definition of “in use” seems vague, Fetterly said. Some hills residents own lots next to their homes and use them as defensible space in case of a wildfire, she said, or a place for their kids to play.

City finance officials said at a meeting last month the ordinance that’s ultimately approved will establish a method for determining what’s “in use” and what isn’t.

The council also could vote to create zones where the tax would be imposed. The vast majority of the city’s vacant parcels are small and located in residential neighborhoods in West Oakland, North Oakland and the Oakland hills.

Multiple attempts to reach city officials for comment over the past month were unsuccessful.

The City Council was warned before sending the measure to the ballot that the tax could hurt some property owners. In a report issued last summer, the Turner Center found that because of its flat fee structure, the tax would affect individual owners more than “wealthy individuals, trusts or corporate owners,” report author Hayley Raetz said.

Raetz determined there’s about 4,000 vacant parcels in Oakland and that 57 percent of their owners possess only one. That number could be skewed, though, because owners of multiple parcels often tend to create individual limited liability companies for each, according to the report.

“If some of the parcels are owned by families and individuals, a large increase in property tax could potentially burden owners with fewer resources to develop the parcel,” Raetz said in the report. “Additionally, pushing individuals to sell quickly could lower their return for the land itself, and may undercut a key source of wealth for local individuals.”

Oakland real estate agent David Eckert confirmed that the tax has significantly reduced prices of certain vacant properties, which already were weakened by rising construction costs, impact fees and a spike in utilities installation costs. But certain properties will retain their value, he said, including ones in a prime location for development.

There are several exemptions to the tax. Owners who are considered “very low income” by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or who make 50 percent of the area median income are exempt, as well as owners who are 65 or older and make less than 80 percent of the area median income. The area median income in 2019 for one person was $78,200 and for a family of four $111,700, according to the city’s website.

Owners who are disabled will not have to pay the tax, and properties owned by nonprofit organizations are exempt. Properties under construction or which have an active building permit application also are exempt, as well as those damaged by natural disasters or other circumstances that prevent development.

Owners can also bypass the tax if they are able to prove they cannot develop their parcel because of a “demonstrable hardship that is not financial,” though that criteria has yet to be defined.

Though she’s older than 65, Fetterly said she isn’t sure whether she’ll qualify for an exemption. She collects Social Security but also draws some income from property her daughter rents and from stocks. Plus, there’s uncertainty about who’ll pay what once an ordinance is drafted.

The tax will be in place for 20 years and is expected to raise more than $10 million a year.

The city already is counting on that money. The council last month approved its budget for the next two fiscal years, which includes spending $4.82 million of Measure W funds during the 2020-21 fiscal year. Those funds will pay for a homeless commission, a pilot program to create self-governed homeless encampments, grants for housing accessibility improvements, a mobile homeless outreach team, surveillance cameras to catch illegal dumping and crews to pick up dumped trash.

Seven retailers are now open for in-store shopping and services at Santana Row, while six restaurants are now open for outdoor dining, according to Federal Realty, the principal owner of the mixed-use commercial complex.